Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case M/s Galaxy Impex vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue S — 2025 MLD 1359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2025 MLD 1359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: MLD
Parties: Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case M/s Galaxy Impex vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue S
Subject matter: Civil
Provisions referred to: S. 9---C; S. 7---S; S. 46---S; S. 46; S. 9; S. 7; Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962); Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990); Sales Tax Act; Civil Procedure Code; Civil Courts Ordinance

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case M/s Galaxy Impex VS Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue S. 9---Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 7---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 46---Suit before Single Bench of the High Court against the tax authorities, filing of---Alternate remedy , availability of ---Plaintiff (taxpayer) filed present suit against the suspension of its Sales Tax Registration---Contention of the plaintiff was that despite the issuance of pre-suspension notice no opportunity was provided---Validity---Said contention appeared to be misconceived as the requirement of law had been complied with, whereas, the plaintiff / petitioner ought to have availed further remedy in accordance with law including but not limited to S.46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---High Court has to exercise its original side jurisdiction sparingly and with caution, it may still take cognizance of any suit arising out of an action/order of the tax authorities/Customs Officers, however, such jurisdiction must be sparingly exercised by the Single Bench---High Court is not required to mandatorily exercise such jurisdiction in tax matters on the Original Side of the High Court in terms of S.9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 , read with S.7 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962---Jurisdiction vested in the High Court specially in tax / revenue matters is not to be exercised in every run-of-the-mill case---Thus, the plaintiff ought to have availed the alternate remedy---Suit, being not maintainable and misconceived, was dismissed.

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD

2025 MLD 1208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHCitation Name: 2025 MLD 1208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Anwer Majid VS Emirates Bank International PJSC (formerly Union Bank…
2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHCitation Name: 2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Sharif VS State Ss. 504, 506-B, 148, 149, 337-a(i) & 337-F(…
2025 MLD 1973 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREFahim Ahmed Saeed VS Mian Humayun Mahmud O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2, O.XLIII, R.1(r) --- appeal against order of Trial Court refusing to grant ad-inte…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 191---Perjury (false evidence)---Administration of justice---Duty of Courts---Perjury is a vice which stigmatizes…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 191---False evidence---Necessary ingredients---Section 191, P.P.C talks about making of false statement in follow…
2025 MLD 1879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORESumera Rasheed VS State S. 192---Fabricating false evidence---Necessary ingredients---Requirement of S.192 P.P.C. is met only if there is an…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English